kyt_list_frames

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Lista' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. The existence of an output schema helps but doesn't excuse the lack of behavioral context in the description itself.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. While it could be slightly more specific about what 'quadros e atributos' entails, it's appropriately concise for a listing tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a read-only listing tool with zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and many similar sibling tools, it lacks important contextual information about when to use it versus alternatives and behavioral characteristics like authentication requirements or result format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description correctly indicates this is a parameterless listing operation ('Lista os quadros e atributos'), which aligns perfectly with the empty input schema. For a zero-parameter tool, this provides adequate semantic information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Lista os quadros e atributos') and the target resource ('conhecidos pela API KYT'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'grafo_list_kyt_layers' or 'grafo_list_kyt_relationships' that also list KYT-related items, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also list KYT-related data (e.g., 'grafo_list_kyt_layers', 'grafo_list_kyt_relationships'), there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's purpose or when it should be selected over those options.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.